Decision allows Freedom of Speech in elections, per SF ethics panel

Pat Powers

The US Supreme Court has held that campaign donations are protected political speech. And today the Sioux Falls City Ethics panel agreed when asked if office holders could endorse and donate to candidates of their choosing. As noted by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

Public office holders in Sioux Falls have no restrictions for political activity that the general public doesn’t have.

“This is an election process and campaigns cost money. How do you fund a campaign? People should have the right to contribute to a candidate, to support a candidate, to proclaim their support for a candidate,” said Jack Marsh, chairman of the Board of Ethics. “And I don’t know why the elected members of City Council should have any less right of free speech, within the bounds of the law, than anybody else.”

Read the entire story here.

And let freedom ring.

17 thoughts on “Decision allows Freedom of Speech in elections, per SF ethics panel”

  1. If there was ever a predictable decision, this was it. People don’t give up their Constitutional Rights when they serve with few exceptions which almost always must be clearly described prior to their accepting to serve and the waiver served another Constitutional principle or right.

    Only a moron would think such a waiver would have been in place because in their head they think it fair.

    1. I take it a step further. By their very nature, ethics panels themselves are constitutionally suspect. Any sanction, restriction or censure of a duly elected officer holder is a diminution of the sanctity of the the votes that put said person in office. Only the voters have that power. The 1st amendment’s freedoms of speech, press and assembly were designed to protect the vote and ensure that elections are true contests of democracy.

  2. Brekke can still follow her conscience and help Stehly in her re-election. That would also be a public service.z

  4. Kudos to the Sioux Falls Ethics Panel. You nailed it.

    Let Freedom Ring 🔔 👍

      1. • John “Jack” Marsh (Chair)
        • Wanda Harris
        • Daniel Fritz
        • Sue Roust
        • Gregory LaFollette

  5. If elected officials have both freedom of speech and freedom of association, why are they not free to block unwanted individuals from their Facebook pages?

    1. Because they have freedom of speech but do not have freedom to restrict OTHER PEOPLES speech when they create a public forum to accept speech from constituents. That’s viewpoint discrimination. You can accept none, or all, but not some as an elected official in a public forum. Thats why if you use a Facebook page to communicate public policy you cannot selectively block people or delete comments.
      If its purely a personal page and 6out keep it politics free you can block or delete whatever you want. Using their speech rights has nothing to do with limiting others on public forums.

      1. The reference to Facebook, the question is not restricting freedom of speech or association when an individual creates a page to post on. Stehly and others who Facebook are letting others take a peak into their lives. It is a gossip site for friends to share thoughts and activities.

        Stehly has thousands of friends and followers she communicates her life and activities to. She also comments on her civic interests. Her page was a way to help her friends keep track of activities. It was never a publicly financed, politically sponsored or government controlled page, it was and is a personal page.

        It reminds me of an oldtime small town newspaper with the neighborhood news where you learned Joe and Martha Jacobson were dinner guests at John and Mary Smith’s house where they admired the flower garden.

        1. This message was brought to you by the Theresa Stehly campaign. It may not reflect the views of this network.

          1. I understand I may have said something you do not agree with but be assured, I do not speak for the Stehly campaign. It is good to see a person, hiding from the light of day is posting as Anonymous, would try to speak for this blog?

        2. Davison vs Randall from the US District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District says you are wrong. They specifically ruled that just because something is privately financed or owned does not exempt it from being a public forum. Elected officials and governments cannot make an end run around public forum rules by simply using a privately funded or owned venue to communicate. There is plenty of precedent on this, see rulings regarding privately owned public access channels not being exempt from public forum rules, just because they are privately owned. Each elected officials personal Facebook page may or may not be a public forum. It depends on the circumstances. The more one uses it to communicate items and opinions related to their position the more likely it becomes a public forum. Even if we accept the premise that it is not a public forum, is she and her defenders now arguing that just because its legal they think its OK to selectively block critics and to delete comments from people that disagree with them? Is that transparent? Is that truly being open to debate?

          1. Because a case “Davison vs Randall from the US District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District” makes a comment in the Federal Fourth District it has little bearing in the activities of the citizens and Courts of the Federal Eighth District we happen to be in. If the Supreme Court says the same thing than we would have to pay attention to their ruling.

            As of right now, Stehly’s Facebook account is hers just as many blogs like this are able to block people if the commenters and owner disagree. I don’t Facebook or ever intend to but understanding the rules is important.

    2. The issue with the Facebook blocking comes down to its use in an official or semi-official capacity. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that restricting access to communicating with elected officials in an official or semi-official capacity violates the First Amendment because it restricts a citizen’s right to air grievances against the government and elected official.

      We focus a lot on speech, association and religion in the First Amendment, but we also need to remember that the First Amendment protects us from punishment for airing grievances to public officials.

  6. Since Theresa is always calling fior transparency for others, Bruce’s defense of Theresa’s Facebook conduct again confirms Theresa’s motto is “Transparency for thee but not for me.”

    There is no limit to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Theresa Stehly and she is wholly unapologetic in her hypocrisy.

Comments are closed.